D&D 5E Concentration mechanic can ruin plots in adventures

[billd91]

I'm three pages into the thread and nobody has yet pointed out that 3e is the only version of D&D that made npcs by the same rules as pcs. This isn't a piece of 5e design, this isn't some unprecedented aberration of the latest edition- it's a return to form.

??? There were plenty of NPCs built on the same basic rules as the PCs in 1e and 2e.

 

[prabe]

Let me get this straight -

You think the game is only 'fair' if the only thing the PCs encounter are other characters made using PC rules? No monsters of course because players can't be monsters. And NPCs can't have lots of allies to fight with them as the PCs don't get that without a specific power. And for each encounter are there the exact same amount of NPCs to PCs? Are they the same level too? They must also be the same class right to be fair?

How do you avoid TPKs? If everything is 'fair' then a TPK is quite likely.

I don't think NPCs need to be generated using entirely the same rules as PCs, though I understand why someone might prefer an NPC who's supposed to have levels in a PC class to be. In this case, the specific problem is that the concentration mechanic is intended to be something an awful lot like a rule of physics--it's a big deal if someone can get past it, and there is apparently in the official works only one NPC that can do it. In this specific case it makes sense to look at other ways of getting the NPC to roughly the same effects without violating that rule.

 

[chando]

Sometimes i like to give NPCs ancient spells, that follow/mimick rules of old editions, and than let players learn it as treasure/training/reward
A ligthining bolt that bounces of walls, a version with a different duration, maybe without concentration...

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't think NPCs need to be generated using entirely the same rules as PCs, though I understand why someone might prefer an NPC who's supposed to have levels in a PC class to be. In this case, the specific problem is that the concentration mechanic is intended to be something an awful lot like a rule of physics--it's a big deal if someone can get past it, and there is apparently in the official works only one NPC that can do it. In this specific case it makes sense to look at other ways of getting the NPC to roughly the same effects without violating that rule.

There is no need to change the concentration mechanic though.

Just give them a power/ability that lets them charm.

This is a thing in the game. Not everything is a spell.

 

[prabe]

There is no need to change the concentration mechanic though.

Just give them a power/ability that lets them charm.

This is a thing in the game. Not everything is a spell.

Yes, but the OP is (was?) trying to reframe an adventure for an older edition that specified this effect as a charm spell. That's why there were suggestions early on to look at the vampire's charm ability.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm three pages into the thread and nobody has yet pointed out that 3e is the only version of D&D that made npcs by the same rules as pcs. This isn't a piece of 5e design, this isn't some unprecedented aberration of the latest edition- it's a return to form.

As I see it, PCs and NPCs were as different in 3E as they were in 2E or 5E. In every case, a narratively-similar NPC (berserker/barbarian, shaman/druid) operates like a streamlined version of the basic class. In every case, the NPCs get fewer abilities and lower numbers. The only difference with 3E is that they were transparent with the math.

More to the point, the NPCs only have abilities that are consistent with the world described by the PC rules. It's not like the PC rules say that wizards have to be smart, and then there's an NPC somewhere who casts wizard spells using Dexterity. The rules of the game reflect how the world works, and everyone lives in that world.

 

[NotAYakk]

So, 5e has a much shallower power curve than 3e does. In 3e, you are supposed to be 2x as powerful every level (based off encounter building rules). In 5e, power is far closer to linear (a party of 4 level 20 PCs finds 29 CR 1 monsters to be a medium difficulty fight based off encounter building; a party of 4 level 1 PCs finds 1 CR 1 monster to be medium difficulty).

And fictionally, level 1 PCs are roughly as powerful.

So a 3e level 11 wizard is 32 times more powerful than a level 1 wizard, so is above level 20 in 5e. Throw in the fact that wizards scale too fast in 3e, and the things a level 10 wizard in 3e can do are easily those of post-level 20 "NPC" equivalents.

It isn't surprising that a story about a being whose power rivals 5e avatars of gods isn't well modeled by a level 10 5e wizard.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep. But I do like my NPC to follow the same rules as the players. Maybe a wish gave him that power but it drove him mad... I don't know. But most suggestions (even mine) seems wonky.

But nice suggestions did came up. Thank you all. I'll have to rewrite a bit of Excapode's background.

Self imposed limitations...

 

[Oofta]

So, 5e has a much shallower power curve than 3e does. In 3e, you are supposed to be 2x as powerful every level (based off encounter building rules). In 5e, power is far closer to linear (a party of 4 level 20 PCs finds 29 CR 1 monsters to be a medium difficulty fight based off encounter building; a party of 4 level 1 PCs finds 1 CR 1 monster to be medium difficulty).

And fictionally, level 1 PCs are roughly as powerful.

So a 3e level 11 wizard is 32 times more powerful than a level 1 wizard, so is above level 20 in 5e. Throw in the fact that wizards scale too fast in 3e, and the things a level 10 wizard in 3e can do are easily those of post-level 20 "NPC" equivalents.

It isn't surprising that a story about a being whose power rivals 5e avatars of gods isn't well modeled by a level 10 5e wizard.

I think the important thing to think about from this is that you can't do a direct comparison between editions. Instead, I'd consider rebuilding the caster a bit so that he's appropriate level for the current edition of the game. Heck, if it doesn't fit the story that a wizard could do this, make it a different monster.

For example, a CR 12 archmage is a level 18 wizard. So adjust a monster/npc from the books based on what CR you think is appropriate and go from there. Ignore the specifics from previous editions, they don't really apply.

 

[Beleriphon]

More to the point, the NPCs only have abilities that are consistent with the world described by the PC rules. It's not like the PC rules say that wizards have to be smart, and then there's an NPC somewhere who casts wizard spells using Dexterity. The rules of the game reflect how the world works, and everyone lives in that world.

I see, your looking at the rules for the players, being somewhat more complex than the rules for monsters, as a physics engine or limit on what the world presents. I'm not sure that's really a good way to look at the game, as a game. The PC rules are there so the players can play a game in a consistent way, not to necessarily emulate or limit the way the fictional reality of the world being imagined. That being said, I wouldn't recommend just adding abilities willy-nilly, but if a specific activity needs an ability that otherwise doesn't exist then that ability gets added to an NPC.

I don't really see a problem with that approach either. If the ability makes the game more interesting, challenging, or engaging does it really matter? From a practical perspective using a double concentration doesn't unbalance the game for the GM, being the GM already does that for them, unlike the PCs being able to concentrate on two spells at the same time. The rules are grounded on the assumption that the PCs concentrate on one spell at a time, this generally transfer to NCPs but the game wont fall apart if you as GM change this in specific instances.